Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

It is my pleasure to take a short call on Part 4. In particular, I want to talk to clause 29 of the legislation, which is “Matters relating to 2019 election”. In clause 29 it says “(1) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act prevents Environment Canterbury from taking any step that must be taken under the Local Electoral Act 2001 for the purposes of the 2019 election. (2) However, Environment Canterbury must review its representation arrangements in accordance with section 19I of that Act, irrespective of whether it would be mandatory for it to do so under the requirements of that section in relation to the 2019 election.”

This comes to some of the core concerns that Labour has about this legislation. It is the “We’ve been here before” clause. Of course, we have, in the passage of this bill, traversed the history of it: that elected members of Environment Canterbury were first sacked in 2010 and the Government made comments at the time saying that it might be as late as 2013 before we could have elected representatives back on Environment Canterbury. Then, lo and behold, the 2013 triennial elections started to roll around, and there was more legislation extending it out for another 3 years. So this clause here, clause 29, does not give us any certainty that we are returning to full elected representation in 2019.

We heard the Hon Nick Smith earlier in the course of this Committee stage feigning some kind of outrage that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove had dared to question whether or not it had been the case—well, he has got form. We have been here before—we have seen elections delayed and pushed out, despite the reassurances that were given to the people of Canterbury—and throughout the course of this debate, there has been an inconsistency and, actually, a lack of coherence in the logic that the Government has used in relation to this legislation, and that is, of course, when its members bother to even try to defend taking away peoples’ democratic rights. It is quite stunning that you can sit through a whole Committee stage of a bill and not one Canterbury member of Parliament will get on their feet and defend the fact that the Government is taking away the right to vote in their region, and continuing that loss of democracy in their region.

What we have had is the Minister Nick Smith, throughout this, saying that it is OK because Labour did it. That seems to be the kind of catch-all that National tries to use for everything. He has used the example of district health boards, he has pulled in the example of Kaipara, and he is has pulled in the example of school boards that have been used in various places. But never ever have we had elections delayed for 9 years, which is the case and is what is entrenched in clause 29 of this legislation. It was in 2010 that that council was first sacked. It would seem a long time, if you had to wait a whole triennium, to have it come into play at the next scheduled triennial election in 2013. That seemed massive to the people of Canterbury.

Then there is the fact that that was pushed out by further legislation before that triennial election in 2013, and we are now having another push out of it, but not a return to full democracy, as Cantabrians were led to believe was going to be the case in 2010—a return to democracy by the time of the 2013 elections. And 6 years later we are debating here, in this Committee tonight, a clause of “Please Sir, can we please have it for the 2019 elections?”. This is just absurd.

I have no faith that this will actually take place. We have seen the Cabinet papers where the Ministry for Primary Industries is lobbying to have the current arrangement made permanent. This is not a temporary arrangement in the minds of many members of this Government. And if I am wrong, I welcome a Government member taking a call on this, putting our fears at ease, and assuring us that there will indeed be no push to have this established as a permanent arrangement, because we know there is an irrigation agenda in here. This is backed up by the fact that the Ministry for Primary Industries wants to see this as a permanent arrangement in Canterbury.

So what we have is that the people of Canterbury should have no faith that even this mixed model governance structure is going to expire in 2019. We have heard it all before. We know that there is lobbying going on in the background, and there is no certainty that there will be fully democratic elections held at the next elections in 2019. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Like Dr Woods, I would like to see a response from National members, and I think it is interesting that we have not heard any calls from National members other than the Minister in support of this bill, and the only calls there have been have been to move closure motions. The reason for that is why would members of the National Party—particularly those members in Canterbury—take a call when they are here because they have been elected? They are here because people voted for them democratically, so how could they defend a system that is in this bill where we have appointed, rather than elected, members around the council table? They know that they do not want to be accused of being hypocrites.

In this call, I would like to speak specifically to clause 27, “Environment Canterbury must report to responsible Ministers on management of fresh water”. They have got to report to the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment every 6 months in relation to progress on the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, progress on other plans relating to the management of fresh water, and progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. If anyone was in any doubt that this bill was about controlling the management of water in Canterbury, this clause should remove that. Environment Canterbury has a wide range of functions for the management of natural resources—for the coast, for air, for natural hazards, for transport planning in the region, and for the management of pests—yet the only provision where the council is required to report to the Minister is in relation to water. So that shows that all the Minister’s arguments about needing continuity and about providing effective leadership somehow do not apply to all of the other responsibilities of the regional council—only to water. So, yes, this is about water.

It will be interesting to see what the Minister is interested in having reports from the council on. Will he—or she—be interested in how many more rivers and lakes are unswimmable? Will they be interested in the fact that the headwater streams of the Ōtākaro—or the Avon River—are drying up? Will they be interested in the fact that the species that depend on the braided rivers in Canterbury like the Rākaia and the Rangitata—all the wrybills and the black-fronted tern—are in deep trouble? Will they be interested in the snapshot of the state of the rivers that one submitter presented, just looking at incidents in October and November, that identified six rivers in South Canterbury where there were problems with toxic benthic cyanobacteria mats and where Environment Canterbury was warning that river users should avoid the areas because of those mats, from the Ōpihi to the Temuka River and to the Pareora—will the Ministers be interested in those reports? I do not think so. I think they will be more interested in the amount to which irrigation is proposed to be expanded in upcoming years, because of their emphasis on subsidising irrigation and using that to promote extensive dairying. And yet in Canterbury we have a major decline in water quality, which Environment Canterbury has comprehensively failed to report on.

Under an elected council, we had a very detailed and comprehensive state of the environment report released in 2009. Under the appointed commissioners, we have had only a snapshot of their progress in meeting the targets of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But that was enough to show that there is a continuing decline. In lowland spring-fed streams—on the plains, for example—in 2010, around 40 percent of those streams were in poor or very poor health in terms of the aquatic ecosystems, but in 2014 that had increased to 67 percent. We have got the Canterbury medical officer of health warning midwives in the Ashburton area to discourage new parents from bottle-feeding babies using bore water because of the risk of blue baby syndrome and nitrate levels interfering with the uptake of oxygen in the blood. The Minister in the chair, Jo Goodhew, is shaking her head, but those warnings have been issued by the medical officer of health and they were widely reported at the time.

At the same time that we have had water quality decreasing in Canterbury, we have also had an increase in non-compliance. Will the Ministers, under clause 27, be interested in Environment Canterbury’s role in enforcement? Recently, the Press reported that nearly one in five water users were guilty of significant non-compliance in relation to their water takes from streams, rivers, and aquifers. Either they were taking more than they were permitted to by their consent conditions or they were taking when restrictions applied. So 355 irrigators were significantly non-compliant, yet how many prosecutions did Environment Canterbury undertake? It issued only nine infringement and abatement notices. Water quality is declining, yet Environment Canterbury, under the commissioners, is failing to enforce the Resource Management Act requirements adequately.

In relation to things like transport, it is really disappointing that this provision does not require reporting on the other of Environment Canterbury’s responsibilities. It is one of the reasons why we believe that elected councillors would do a better job in areas like transport, because they would be much more responsive to their communities. We have seen a major decline in patronage of bus services under the commissioners. Some of that was due to the earthquakes, but they have failed to take action in an innovative way to encourage patronage. We have had media reports recently where we have had a further decline in patronage, and what are the commissioners proposing to do? Increase the fares, which is likely to lead to more decline in passenger numbers, and this is with a council that was once responsible for one of the most accessible and cost-effective bus systems in the whole of Australasia, before commissioners were appointed.

So we would like to see the Environment Canterbury commissioners having to report to the Ministers on their other functions and not just on fresh water, but the fact that this clause focuses on fresh water highlights once again that this bill is all about water and the promotion of irrigation. Thank you.

This legislation will be repealed, under clause 6, after the 2019 election, and by then Environment Canterbury will have had to have decided, under clause 29 in this part of the bill, what wards it will have and how many councillors per ward it will have, and whatever other arrangements will be necessary for the election to then take place for the 3-year term following the 3 years under this bill. But when you look at clause 29(2) it says “Environment Canterbury must review”. That means that all members of Environment Canterbury must be carrying out that review, and that will include the six appointed members.

I think that it is most inappropriate for appointed members whose purpose is to be there—as we have heard repeatedly from the Minister—just to look after water issues to then be deciding what representation arrangements will be made for the next 3 years, under which all of the Environment Canterbury members will be elected. That is a most inappropriate provision, and it clearly shows that this Government has not properly thought out this legislation, because I cannot believe that it will have deliberately wanted it to happen.

If it did, then those members are out of their tiny minds, because it is not appropriate for people who are appointed to look after the water issues under this bill, and for 3 years following the 2016 elections, to be then taking part in the determination of what will happen for the fully elected term after that. It is just very, very bad law altogether. We have got a situation where not only are those appointed members going to be usurping the role of what should be fully elected members for the 3 years in question but in this bill they are going to usurp the role of an elected council to determine what the representation situation will be after that. I could not think of anything more inappropriate.

Another point about that is, we are told, the whole point of the appointment of people to Environment Canterbury is so that we would have the right skills there. I read out in an earlier speech the skills that were required, and they all relate to water issues and so on. But, actually, none of those skills are applicable to making a decision under clause 29(2) of this bill in relation to future representation arrangements for Environment Canterbury.

Clause 29(2) is a disgrace. It should not be in this bill. Members opposite should acknowledge that, delay this bill, and make sure that that clause is redrafted completely. That is really what is required. It is disgraceful, it is badly thought out, and, in fact, the entire bill is disgraceful and badly thought out.